Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Hi, I approach mistake of modern physics via history of science. please tell me your impression.

At the end of the 16 th century the telescope was invented in Europe. In the 17th century Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and others, the age of celestial observation developed rapidly. In 1543, Copernicus advocated the theory of revolution in "About the rotation of the earth". But yet the times were before the dawn of science, the church did not admit the theory of the theory. Kepler announced Kepler's law in 1609 "Astronomia nova ", the next year Galileo will publish "Sidereus Nunciu". In nearly a century from Copernicus, the pressure of the church could not suppress the quest for inquiry. There, in 1637, Descartes appeared, introducing 'Discours de la méthode'. It was an epoch-making idea of seeing phenomena in the natural world in relation to things and things. The idea of revolutionizing the church 's authoritarianism, metaphysical nature' s perspective from the ground up shone. The era will push forward to the scientific revolution at once. Descartes' Mechanism thought was accepted by astronomers and scientific noblemen of those days.

Astronomical observations were performed vigorously, but since the telescope was not on the market as it is now, astronomers had only to assemble themselves. It was the first step towards observation of astronomical observation that self-made telescope which can be seen well. Galileo built a telescope about twenty times as much as I made himself and made astronomical observations. In the observation of Galileo, the orbit of the planet was thought to be drawing a circle almost. It seems that Galileo thought that the planet was operating under the support of a stick. When Kepler calculated the orbit of Mars, it turned out to draw an ellipse instead of a circle. Kepler also thought that the planet was at the top of the polyhedron at the beginning, and it was moving with certain rules. It is different from the image that spinning around the sun as it is now. Kepler clearly handled gravity and repulsion when the two planets moved. However, when this becomes Newton, the repulsion disappears somewhere.

Newton's gravitation was two groundbreaking discoveries: gravity equally acts in all places, gravity is a force proportional to the quantity of things. But the former had no grounds. Applying the ground attraction to the moon trajectory calculation, it was only by chance that close numbers were obtained. Gravity acts equally in all places, the influence of God Newton has believed is great. It was reasoning from Kepler's law that gravity is proportional to the quantity of things. It is said that this will produce gravity later on. Newton seems to have known the gravity idea by exchanging letters with Hook. It is pointed out that the idea is stolen from Hook.

Newton announces the universal gravitation is criticized by German Leibniz. This was due to the controversial interest of the integral method, but Newton's attraction is a remote effect that is transmitted instantaneously, contradicting the Descartes methodology at the time, meaning the introduction of the power of God. The power that is transmitted instantaneously without intervention was an unacceptable idea at that time. This criticism leads further to Kant.

Kant describes the formation of the universe in the "Philosophische Bibliothek", but criticizes Newton's universal gravitation which is told only by attraction in a theory which later becomes the theory of nebula. If it is only gravitation, the universe will become one chunk. He pointed out the drawback of universal gravitation as repulsive force is not a distant force.

For Kant, gravity and repulsion occupied the same position in the universe. Perhaps it was considered common sense of philosophers and astronomers in the first half of the 18th and 17th centuries. In the early nineteenth century, Hegel wrote that criticism of Kant 's Newton in' Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse 'was due to Kant' s lack of understanding. In the era of Hegel, the repulsive force had already disappeared from the universe.

It was the experiment that Cavendish did in 1798 that erased the repulsive force. The experiment of Cavendish was to weigh the earth, but it was assumed that the mass would produce gravity. The force with which 700 grams and 160 kg of lead balls attracted was measured with a torsion balance. As a result, the weight of the earth was set to 5.4 times the specific gravity of water. This was later used to determine the gravitational constant. The experiment of Cavendish is said to have proved that mass produces gravity. He strongly affirmed Newton's universal gravitation. Because Hegel knew this experiment, he probably criticized Kant. Even without knowing, common sense of the world might have changed.

Prior to the creation of electromagnetism in the 19th century Newton's universal gravitation was common sense. The gravity of the earth and the universe are the same, the mass produces gravity, these two are embedded in the root of modern science. In the nineteenth century was also the century in which geoscience rapidly developed from geology. Lyel, a foundation from Sir Kelvin to Wegener of Continental Movement Theory was created.

In the 19th century, a great experimenter Faraday appears. Faraday was a bookbinding craftworker, but he began to engage in scientific research as an experimental assistant at the Royal Society. Because he did not receive higher education, almost no mathematical formula came out in the paper written by Faraday. But Faraday laid the foundation for current electromagnetism, including electromagnetic induction. Maxwell was the mathematical expression of the achievements of Faraday's experiments.

The difference in age between Maxwell and Faraday is 40 years old. When Faraday is 64 years old, Maxwell 24 years old formulated Faraday's electric lines of force for the first time. However, this mathematical electric line of force was quite different from the image of Faraday. Faraday's electric lines of force were images of the power that plus and minus force exerts straightforward power. Maxwell, however, had positive and negative lines of force containing the effect of neutralizing each other halfway. In other words, Faraday's electric lines of force act separately on objects as plus and minus, and the resultant forces inside the object appear as a result, but Maxwell neutralizes the lines of electric force and adds and subtracts them I tried to do it. For the resultant force in the object, it may be because the mathematical formula becomes complicated. It is the same reason Newton eliminated the repulsive force.

Actually, Maxwell was doing the task of sorting experiment notes of Cavendish at that time. Whether Cavendish's experiment was told from Maxwell to Faraday is unknown. But Faraday suddenly begins gravity experiment after meeting Maxwell. The aim was to drop the specially made coil from top to bottom and ascertain the existence of the current that should be making gravity. Faraday realized that gravity is electromagnetic force.

Lead used in the experiment of Cavendish was diamagnetic. Paramagnetic materials such as iron and diamagnetic substances have properties that they can bounce magnetic field lines when placed in a magnetic field. Also, if the S pole of the magnet is brought closer to it, it is magnetized to the same S pole. It has properties opposite to those of paramagnetic substances. Faraday discovered that lead is diamagnetic. Perhaps when I learned about the experiment of Cavendish, did not Faraday notice the effect of lead placed in the earth's magnetic field? In this experiment I felt that a strong electromagnetic force of 10 ^ 40 of gravity is acting. The experiment of Cavendish is wrong, the mass does not produce gravity.

Faraday tried to prove by gravitational force that the gravity is electromagnetism many times, but it eventually failed. But "This is the end of my present attempt, the result is negative. These results do not shake my strong premonition that there is a relationship between gravity and electricity, but that We have not given any evidence that such relationship exists. " The current Faraday tried to detect existed. At the present time, very weak current called atmospheric current has been discovered. Atmospheric current is only 1 picoamperes per square meter. It is a weak current that can not be detected by instruments at that time. Faraday's premonition was not wrong.

Let's summarize the main points. There are three unproven laws mixed in the foundation that made the present science.

1. The ground attraction and the universe's gravity are the same (elimination of repulsive force)2. Mass produces gravity3. Neutralize electric flux lines

These three are complicatedly intertwined and continue to exert a huge influence on physics and earth science. From 1 and 2, the theory of relativity was born. Current mainstream Big Bang cosmology is under its influence. The experiment of Cavendish 2 is the foundation of earth science as it is. The electric line of force 3 made Bohr's atomic model, and it gave birth to quantum mechanics.

Modern science is established on Newton's mistake, Maxwell's misunderstanding

Interesting, thank you.I see it this way; Einstein did an honest job in his Special Theory of Relativity.However, I think he also desperately wanted to be able to explain gravity, so 10 years later he announced the General Theory of Relativity. I believe he might have justifyed it with: "Imagination is more important than knowledge," and: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.I agree that space time means that when observing something that is 1000 light years away, you are looking 1000 years back in time. However, when Einstein suggests that mass distorts the fabric of his imaginary "space time", it is my duty to call on other scientists for a better suggestion.Had Albert lived until 1964, when the quark model was independently proposed by physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig, Albert Einstein could have explained gravity in terms of physics, restored his integrity and recalled his earlier hoax on an unsuspecting scientific community.

Bengt Nyman wrote:George Zweig, Albert Einstein could have explained gravity in terms of physics, restored his integrity and recalled his earlier hoax on an unsuspecting scientific community.

hi, thank you for your response.I think universe and gravity on ground are different. it is electric attraction, repulsion in universe.on ground surface, the atmosphere is positively charged, so no repulsive force appears.EU's electric gravity is right.

I find the identity of inertial and gravitational mass interesting. Inertia is the default tendency of objects to maintain constant velocity (with stationary objects merely being cases where v=0). In other words, inertia is a manifestation of the Law of Comservation of Energy, because energy is required to exert a force on an object in order to change its velocity (i.e to accelerate it). But what does this have to do with what we call gravity? I suggest it has everything to do with it. For an object on or near the Earth to conserve energy via inertia it has to go to the location where the requirement to move relative to the rest of the Earth is minimised, and that location is at the centre of the Earth. (This is also the location where its Potential Energy is mininzued, as per the Law of Minimum Potential Energy which I propose is itself essentially a restatement of the Law of Entropy). The reason objects don't fly off into deep space or towards the Sun is because the Earth's orbit is a location of electrical equilibrium as per Donald Scott's ideas about heliospheric Birkland currents (ie the least energy demanding location for the Earth as a whole is in the middle of its orbit, not the middle of the Sun). Objects can "sense" where these energy bliss points are via their electric fields which extend infinitely and drop off by 1/r^2, the same as gravity.

The question is, where does 9.81 m/s^2 come from? I agree that the mainstream derivation involving mass and G is unsatisfactory, but I'm yet to come across a better derivation (or indeed any alternative derivation).

Pi sees wrote:The question is, where does 9.81 m/s^2 come from? I agree that the mainstream derivation involving mass and G is unsatisfactory, but I'm yet to come across a better derivation (or indeed any alternative derivation).

hi, thank you for your comment.I have several answer for you. I guess mass is electromagnetic resistance.

These are not enough. The atmosphere is ionized by cosmic rays and is charged to weak plus. Furthermore, objects on the surface are electronically polarized. Electronic polarization depends on the large amount of electrons contained in the crust generating ELF by rotation. It is Schumann resonance. Because the ELF has a difficulty shielding, it is impossible to shield gravity on the earth even if making a thick iron wall. ELF is also an intermediary for conveying the electric field.

In order to prove this, there is no choice but to make anti - gravity equipment. I am preparing now.

Obviously this issue of the relationship between electro-magnetism and gravity has stumped everyone as nobody has been able to come up with an explanation that any critically minded scientist is happy with.Building on the ideas of many others, here is a model or theory that might help a bit, hopefully.Clearly the fact that an apple falls from the tree to the ground has something to do with motion and inertia, it comes to rest because the ground stops it from falling further "into" the earth. This falling towards to earth can be explained from an EU perspective by arguing that the earth is a giant electro-magnet with it's plane of inertia slicing thru it's middle at the equator. The apple is being drawn down towards that plane of inertia and if a hole or shaft existed to the centre of the earth the apple would continue to fall until it reached the so-called zero point. Then it would stop, it would be at rest.Every magnet has to have a "neutral" point or plane, between it's poles and everything tends to want to move to that point or plane.

This basic explanation fits in with the crude Newtonian ideas of the gravitational effect being related to the distance between bodies and it also enables the influences of multiple bodies to come into play.It also enables us to understand what happens when a magnet is dropped inside a cylinder made of an insulating material (the dielectric) and falls much slower than the normal rate of fall. There are a number of videos on youtube which show this effect.

A totally un-original idea but one which simply explains how the EU model can easily explain gravity at the macro or planetary level. The picture is from Ken Wheeler but the formatting here removed his name and part of the image.We do indeed live in an electric universe.

Attraction/fall/drawn/etc is pretty much using gravity behavior to describe gravity. How do the apple and earth move toward each other?

Catonic wrote:Obviously this issue of the relationship between electro-magnetism and gravity has stumped everyone as nobody has been able to come up with an explanation that any critically minded scientist is happy with.Building on the ideas of many others, here is a model or theory that might help a bit, hopefully.Clearly the fact that an applefalls from the tree to the ground has something to do with motion and inertia, it comes to rest because the ground stops it from falling further "into" the earth. This falling towards to earth can be explained from an EU perspective by arguing that the earth is a giant electro-magnet with it's plane of inertia slicing thru it's middle at the equator. The apple is being drawn down towards that plane of inertia and if a hole or shaft existed to the centre of the earth the apple would continue to fall until it reached the so-called zero point. Then it would stop, it would be at rest.Every magnet has to have a "neutral" point or plane, between it's poles and everything tends to want to move to that point or plane.

This basic explanation fits in with the crude Newtonian ideas of the gravitational effect being related to the distance between bodies and it also enables the influences of multiple bodies to come into play.It also enables us to understand what happens when a magnet is dropped inside a cylinder made of an insulating material (the dielectric) and falls much slower than the normal rate of fall. There are a number of videos on youtube which show this effect.

A totally un-original idea but one which simply explains how the EU model can easily explain gravity at the macro or planetary level. The picture is from Ken Wheeler but the formatting here removed his name and part of the image.We do indeed live in an electric universe.

Scientific theory needs to be assembled from fundamental phenomena. If you can make a swirl, you should explain its mechanism and explain the existing phenomenon. It is important not only to explain one phenomenon but also to investigate how many phenomena occurring in nature are related to that theory.

Natural phenomena are related to each other, there is nothing useless.

MotionTheory wrote:Attraction/fall/drawn/etc is pretty much using gravity behavior to describe gravity. How do the apple and earth move toward each other?

When an object, we shall say an apple, is floating around in outer space far enough away from earth it's small, weak electro-magnetic field is not attracted to anything although it will be acted upon by Birkeland currents, plasma etc. Then it drifts towards earth and reaches the outer edge of the earth's electro-magnetic field which slowly, at first, draws the apple towards the earths plane of inertia and as the apple gets closer to earth the strength of the earth's E-M field increases and pulls the apple towards it's plane of inertia at an increasing rate as Newton discovered without understanding the cause. In other words, the admittedly simple maths that Newton and others since have used to explain and test the speed and acceleration of bodies "falling" or being "attracted" to earth can also be used to show the empirical validity of the above hypothesis. Of course, it is more complicated than the simple explanation above. Mass, as per Wal Thornhill, is affected by the electrical charge of a body. Or to put it another way, the strength of the earth's E-M field is going to influence how close a given "apple" has to get to the earth before it starts to get drawn towards the earth's plane of inertia and how fast that descent or attraction will be.Another point to take into account is that we now know that there exists paramagnetism and diamagnetism , not just electro-magnetism, so that also matters.

Scientific theory needs to be assembled from fundamental phenomena. If you can make a swirl, you should explain its mechanism and explain the existing phenomenon. It is important not only to explain one phenomenon but also to investigate how many phenomena occurring in nature are related to that theory.

Natural phenomena are related to each other, there is nothing useless.

There have been many people who have studied the dynamics of magnetic lines of force or, more accurately, magnetic fields. There have been many who have examined the dynamics of electro-magnetic fields, from Faraday onwards. The toroidal nature of such dynamics has been shown in many ways, experiments, pictures, videos etc. Ken Wheeler has done a lot of work in this regard. His use of the ferrocell shows such spiralling forces but many others have done similar work, including the EU people.Looking at the issue of the mechanism from a reductionist standpoint the fundamental causes are spin, rotation and positive, negative and neutral charges or poles. You can say that they explain how and why magnetism and electricity exist and things go from there or you can start with magnetism and movement and inertia and then use those phenomena to explain spin, rotation and toroidal movement, electricity, atoms etc.It becomes a chicken or the egg type argument at some point in such matters.At some point we have to make assumptions about first causes, unless we so arrogant as to claim to know the "mind" of "god". From there, the EU model can explain way more than any other hypothesis in a logical and consistent manner, as shown by the many speakers at their conferences who explain how the EU model relates to biological functioning, the history of hieroglyphs, the formation of craters etc on the Moon, Mars etc, the formation of mountain ranges on earth and so on.Nothing explains inter-related natural phenomena in a unified manner like the EU model, imo.

I don't know it but that is what the people who have studied the dynamics of electro-magnetic fields claim and it makes sense in relation to the lines of force that various measuring devices show and the structure of galaxies etc.The ABC article comes to the same conclusion but they explain it in terms of gravity of course.Both the concept of gravity and Einstein's warped space-time are theoretical concepts which nobody has been able to actually show exist. They claim that gravity causes this or that but cannot explain how or why.On the other hand, we can empirically prove that magnetism, electricity of various types and electro-magnetism all exist and many experiments have been carried out concerning their effects, dynamics, strength etc.In other words, the fundamentals of EU model concerning the role of electro-magnetism are scientifically supported by empirical evidence and testing whereas the Newtonian gravity theory and Einstein's warped space-time theory are not.Both just tautologically assume that some observed effect results from their concept of gravity or space-time.

Newton pointed out the effects of gravity, including apples falling toward earth, the moon orbiting the earth and planets orbiting the sun. Isac Newton never claimed to know what causes gravity.Einstein 1915 tried to explain what causes gravity by adding his General theory of relativity including warped space. Einstein tried, but failed to point out what causes gravity.The necessary knowledge about electrical charges and quark particle physics did not arrive until 1945. Now we know what causes gravity, strong force and more. http://www.dipole.se

Please explain to me the EU model of gravity, based on real physics and without blaming plasma or using Einstein like slide of hand or pseudo religion.